HPAVC

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ HPAVC / HPAVC CD-ROM.iso / pc / CIS_GAME.ARJ / QCRPG1.THD < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1993-07-01 | 29.1 KB | 547 lines

_________________________ Subj: AD&D MultiUser RPG _________________________ Fr: Mike Higginbotham 70410,135 # 0 S2/Saved M To: Steve Bauman 72730,620 Date: 05-Aug-92 20:38:34 I'm not sure I'm sending this to the right person(s) but ... I would think the easiest way to write a multi-scenario adv. game would be to use a scene switching gimmick of which many abound. The gimmick is the way to (loosely) tie together the scenarios. An example is a time machine. Let's say a scientist hops into a time PC and is instantly transported to other peoples' bodies! Wait a minute! That sounds like 'Quantum Leap'. Better change it somehow to avoid copyright lawyers. How about crossing it with 'Revenge of the Nerds' and call it 'Quantum Dweeb'? How about a half dozen other scene switching gimmicks... moving from floor to floor in a dungeon, Zork is taken, better use Pork or Porkies or something, ...move from place to place in a ship ala Star Trek the Love Boat, ... move from flashback to flashback via a bad Kool-Aid induced reaction ... You could also use the 'send a secret agent on a mission' ploy (James Blond, double oh-oh) Pick a gimmick, any gimmick. I beleive the SF/F writer C.J.Cherryh (sp?) sent the protagonist from world to world via a one way gate. The gates were one way because they had to be turned off permanently one at a time. My suggestion for plots for all the sub-scenes would be to use these 13 main plots. THat would add diversity. Humour or straight adventure probably work best for the overall theme. Guess which one I prefer. (are there really only 13 main plots?) -Mike H. ........................................................................... Fm: Michael Julson 71155,1520 # 285636 To: A.Karlsson 100023,3301 Date: 25-Jan-93 15:33:20 I'm also working on a similar program, although for a Multi-line bbs, not a network. I dont know how to answer your question, but I have a question for you, or anyone else that has written multi-user games. How do you handle Weapons, items, etc, of magical-supreme nature. Or the key villans along the way to the main villan. My problem is: "Larry Logs on...is getting better and better in the game, and one of the objects in the game is to get the Sword of Vex. Well he kills the terrible, nasty slug, and is able to take the sword. He then leaves the area, and starts going to another part of the game. He then logs off the system to go eat dinner. During dinner, a power strike comes through the line, and his computer is toast. He doesn't have the money to get it fixed for a few months, so he doesn't log on. Because of this, this sword is now taken out of the game, and will not ever be found." Anyone have a solution for this??? These games ussually take weeks to solve, and all of them up till now has not used anything like this, nor has come up with a solution to this. Any ideas??? BTW: All names in the above message have been changed to protect the innocent. :) Michael ........................................................................... Fm: John Burkhard 71044,3263 # 285857 To: Michael Julson 71155,1520 Date: 25-Jan-93 22:27:53 I played a game in college on a time sharing system which basically involved bashing on monsters, finding treasure, and generally trying to be the biggest, baddest mutha in the world. This game was fairly simple by today's standards. No mazes, no nothing. Just a plane extending to infinity in the X and Y directions. The toughness of the monsters was directly proportional to your distance from 0,0. One of the treasures you could find after beating up a monster was a Crown. When you got the crown, you headed back quick as a bunny to 0,0 and the thrown. The difficulty was when the 'king' was playing and on the thrown. He could, by virtue of being king, do all kinds of nasties to nearly anyone he wanted (including anyone that might be in possession of a crown!) To answer your question though, if it's a complex game which requires many weeks to solve, and a player might go away with the magic key and never come back, well... Ice him. Give him a week or so, and if he doesn't come back, the next player along trips over his bones and finds the key. Hey, com'on! It's only a game! You have to eat in Hack to survive, why not call it something along the same lines? Like perhaps connecting with your personnae? Leave him alone for a long time and he dies of lonliness maybe? -jb ........................................................................... Fm: A.Karlsson 100023,3301 # 285940 To: Michael Julson 71155,1520 Date: 26-Jan-93 00:29:36 Maybe storing all items in one place together with the owners names and some kind of time out which when the player doesn't enter the game for n days it is thrown out in the game again or the player gets killed with his items (the fabolous sword) laying around him. or one could activate the player and play him as a monster wielding the sword ?! anders ........................................................................... Fm: Shaune Morley 73457,252 # 286042 To: Michael Julson 71155,1520 Date: 26-Jan-93 08:09:41 In a multi-player game you have to be more open, there can't be one thing to do or one great treasure, you need lots of things to do and lots of treasures. Most of the time you have to decide if an item is going to be unique or not. You can put in a regenerating puzzle, X has a shield, a very good magical shield, he'll give it anyone who brings him a Y corpse (Y being a very hard to beat creature who is scarce) that way many people can get the shield. For a very powerful item, and there is just one, then don't plan on it being needed to further a quest, someone will get it, be afraid of losing it and not put it at risk if he or she doesn't have to. Shaune ........................................................................... Fm: A.Karlsson 100023,3301 # 285943 To: Mark Iennaco 71740,2675 Date: 26-Jan-93 00:34:06 Well, I have looked around a lot for any such sources but until now I haven't seen any. I remember way back in 84-86 (being nostalgic) when I played a multi-user adventure game called Quest on an Ecplise 8000. That was an outdoor adventure which despite all its bugs was fun to play. I was like playing NetHack but outdoors, although that particular program was written in FORTRAN and problably using all the multi-tasking abilities of the environment. I guess that a big problem that the mudd's available run on some mini or so and use massive of memory and multi-tasking abilites although nowadays there should be a chance to port such a prog to a pc. anders ........................................................................... Fm: John Burkhard 71044,3263 # 285854 To: A.Karlsson 100023,3301 (X) Date: 25-Jan-93 22:27:39 My only real multi-user experience is in writing multi-user database applications, and I'm afraid it might not be directly applicable here. However, that never stopped me from jumping in both feet first before! A friend of mine and I a few years back discussed at great length the pros and cons of the various methods which could be used for controling the multi-user stuff. The game we were exploring was a space combat type game, although I'm sure there's a lot of similarity between the what we looked at doing and what you're attempting. First off, you'll almost have to make the game a real-time game (not a disadvantage: it invites an event driven approach, which as you will see makes everything a lot easier). Otherwise synchronization is a pain, and you don't want to have all the users wait on Fred while he's busy answering a phone call. If your net supports direct peer to peer or client to client messaging, use it where possible. It's a bit more complicated to write, but you may want to consider a highly distributed architecture. Your workstation is the master of all it surveys: if you're alone in a room with a single monster, your workstation handles it, and reports the results back to some kind of a server which keeps track of everything. If someone else walks into the room, they ask the server to tell them what's in the room and who is in charge. The two workstations then begin communicating with each other, and leave the server out of it. Think of it as intellegence on a 'need to know' basis. If Fred doesn't need to know I just killed an orc, I won't tell him. Yes, in this arrangement, you will need a server, but it will only tell the clients the location and "ownership" of various objects, etc. The server will necessarily handle movement & strategy for all "orphan" objects, but then the clients will handle movement and strategy for all objects which they "own", so there would be very little difference between the client and the server version of the program. As more players join the game, more of the responsibility for objects are off-loaded to clients, and the server performance (to the person playing on the server) should theoretically improve. And, network message traffic levels should only be a factor when you have two or more players in the same space at the same time. ........................................................................... Fm: A.Karlsson 100023,3301 # 285963 To: John Burkhard 71044,3263 Date: 26-Jan-93 00:56:42 Sounds pretty tough to program..... Well I would like that the program runs on any network in other words no direct messages. It is probably true that distributing the workload as much as possible has its advantages but the question is if doesn't become to complex ? I was thinking in the lines of having a kind of time sharing system where each player has x seconds to do an action if he doesn't do any action during this time then tough luck - wait for next round. After each player has told the server what action he wants to do (for the next round) the server decides the order (ini-roll) for the players and executes their wishes if possible. The monsters are also included in the action list and are exposed by the same rules of action. ........................................................................... Fm: Mike Higginbotham 70410,135 # 286308 To: Michael Julson 71155,1520 (X) Date: 26-Jan-93 19:27:42 This may not be a complete reply to the question of what to do with players missing for a while, but ... Magical items can sometimes teleport themselves back to an assigned (or a random) location if the willpower of the user is lacking. If a player is MIA, so is the players' willpower. A certain amount of delay should be incorporated into said relocation (obviously). A user MIA for too long a period should be declared legally dead. Anyone serious enough to play a weeks long game should be able to find some way to re-log-on before Mistress Death intervenes. These sorts of conditions must be explicitly explained before hand. Active players can take objects from the bodies of the DOA players. That is actually one of the better ways to return non- magical items to the dungeon. A harder way to deal with the extended MIA situation is to allow more than one path to the final objective. Certainly more interesting to play and a heck of a lot more interesting to program. :) Extended absences w/o DOAs (ie; the player returns) have to be explained. Perhaps a power failure in the dungeon ("The orcs forgot to light the torches again, I couldn't see to move and so I was stuck in one spot for a while!") or maybe the player fell through a trap door and just now managed to return. Teleport spells, brief black-outs from falling masonry/rock slides/hunger/ insulin shock/excessive daydreaming, and kidnapping by space aliens/slavers/ monsters/playful pixies (the Bartoli triplets!) have also been used. It is the option of the dungeon master program to decide how badly the returning player has been mauled by passing beasties and players. Also, what equipment the player retains. If the game is cooperative, the active players could decide how the MIA player behaves until the the MIA either returns or is DOA. (I'm assuming you have no human dungeon master) In a competitive environment, the other players are less likely to let the absent player live/participate. In a co-opetitve environment, Novell sues Microsoft. One of the other ways that items wend their way back is : user disappears for a while, it is assumed that the user went to town, indulged in various vices, got robbed (or killed) and some other NPC brought the item(s) back to the dungeon. The AI incorporated into the game can also play the part of the absent user for a limited amount of time; if the MIA was walking around, keep walking (at least until the orcs douse the lights again) and randomly interract with others. (ie; the MIA goes into NPC mode for a while) What all this boils down to is, you need to decide up front how seriously an extended absence affects the other players. Determine what other players do while the MIA is. [sic] It sounds like you're going to have to dynamically adjust the dungeon layout, contents and/or number and difficulty of monster attacks and puzzles right up until the game solution. (ie; player(s) go MIA, remaining players mark time somehow until MIAs reappear) As a last resort Nuke the planet ("Hey, mistakes happen!"/"Just push the damn button!") This last solution requires the sequel called 'GOD'. Its the one where you only get 6 days to create an entire universe. I hope this helps somewhat. LLAP / GBAD ........................................................................... Fm: BattleAxe 71641,2400 # 286360 To: Michael Julson 71155,1520 (X) Date: 26-Jan-93 20:46:25 If you've ever played a MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) the solution is there for the taking. It is time based -- after a random amount of time (determined by a variable in the MCP -- Master Control Program) All items/monsters/etc. are replaced. There are some that cannot be reset, but they are extremely special -- like your sword. Players are not allowed to 'take it with you' when they log off. The only things saved are current stats, gold, and what quests have been completed. You should allow the sword to be sold to a shop for a modest amount. If another player will pay higher for the sword, that will work, too. _---_ / \ | | --=| |=========) BattleAxe! | | \ / ~---~ ........................................................................... Fm: BattleAxe 71641,2400 # 286361 To: Mark Iennaco 71740,2675 (X) Date: 26-Jan-93 20:46:49 Yes -- there is a PC version of LPMUD available for 386 and up. It uses the modem, but I'm sure it wouldn't be TOO hard to write a network port for it. I could UL my working copy to you, but it is over 2 Megs. It might be cheaper to mail you a disk, if you were truly interested. If you have an Internet account with FTP -- try alcazar.cd.chalmers.se (I think that's where I got it...). _---_ / \ | | --=| |=========) BattleAxe! | | \ / ~---~ ........................................................................... Fm: John Burkhard 71044,3263 # 286370 To: A.Karlsson 100023,3301 (X) Date: 26-Jan-93 21:01:41 That is a simpler mechanism in some regards, but does mean the server may need to be a slightly beefier machine. I don't have a NetBios reference here, and I've never programmed at that level (yet). Does NetBios not support direct client to client or peer to peer communications? At the very least, NetBios compatibility would practically guarantee your game to work on most major networks. The only drawback to the single server approach is the server needs to be kinda beefy, unless your universe (i.e., the number of objects of interest) is modest. Just a thought here: You said you were thinking of giving each player a certain amount of time in which to make their move. Presumably, all players would have to wait for the slowest player to respond (limited of course by the amount of time you've given a player to respond). I'm assuming you've played Hack before. Ever tried it on an XT on a level with a *large* treasure zoo? It's kind of frustrating waiting that near second for the system to respond between keystrokes. I could imagine how it might be waiting as much as five seconds (or however long you give the players to respond). Perhaps I'm a little partial, but... The distributed system I described isn't all that difficult to put together, once you get over the event driven learning curve (!). Messages from other players are just like any other kind of event to be handled, except you have a special section of your code which handles network messages exclusively. Oh well... I guess I'm intrigued by the technology -- can't see the forest for the trees or something like that. <g> -jb ........................................................................... Fm: A.Karlsson 100023,3301 # 286538 To: John Burkhard 71044,3263 Date: 27-Jan-93 01:07:02 No it is problably a good idea to do it as you say, however I don't have any access to NetBios stuff anyway at the momement and we have a pc-nfs network here (so slow). So the only alternative to my suggestion would be to have it running in realtime then ? I just can't picture myself playing NetHack in realtime: "Hold on a sec, I just want look into my backpack, cast a spell, ...) <!> Another problem I thought about is how does one split the XP from a monster which has been slain. Would all players in x squares from it get the XP, the last who hit it, all players who have hit it - special cases as the big fighter chops in on the monster and does 100 pts of damage and the a thief comes and does 2 pts of damage slaying the creature... ??? anders ........................................................................... Fm: Michael Julson 71155,1520 # 286754 To: A.Karlsson 100023,3301 Date: 27-Jan-93 13:41:11 **** Another problem I thought about is how does one split the XP from a monster which has been slain. Would all players in x squares from it get the XP, the last who hit it, all players who have hit it - special cases as the big fighter chops in on the monster and does 100 pts of damage and the a thief comes and does 2 pts of damage slaying the creature... ??? **** You could base the Xp on not what is slain, but what is done. Each sucessful hit get's 5points Multiplied by level of monster. Each spell that is cast is n points multiplied by level of spell, etc.etc... The only problem with this, is in a multi-user enviroment, it is creating more calculations for the computer to do. Shrug.. Michael ........................................................................... Fm: Mark Iennaco 71740,2675 # 286937 To: A.Karlsson 100023,3301 Date: 27-Jan-93 19:02:52 Don't be too constrained by the D&D paradigm. You could, for example, give points for damage. That way "fight _and_ run away" still gets some reward. Realistically, taking a couple of swings and realizing that your sword is taking more damage than the monster is a REAL learning experiance. More generally, the D&D system rewards bashing everything-that-moves. Giving points for non-combat actions (solving puzzles, getting to special places, etc...) will allow a richer game. TakeItEZ Mark ........................................................................... Fm: Gerald Preissler 100031,2666 # 289187 To: Michael Julson 71155,1520 Date: 31-Jan-93 14:36:18 Michael, one solution to your game would be to make a player's character an NPC after the player has not logged on for a set time. The character kind of goes adventuring of his own (and can be attacked by other PC's) until his master returns. That way important items can be kept in the game. Just a thought Jerry ........................................................................... __________________________ Subj: Adventure vs RPG __________________________ Fm: Frank Sachse 74140,2413 # 386657 To: ALL Date: 29-Jun-93 11:01:15 And now for something completely different... This may seem like a trivial, non-tech question, but I have to ask it. What is the difference, to both the player & developer, between an adventure game & an RPG? The July issue of CGW, which by the way has a feature on game design (mostly the recent convention), has these 2 rating categories with: Monkey Island, Indiana Jones/Atlantis, Quest for Glory, Kings Quest, etc. being regarded as adventure, while Ultima, Ultima Underworld, Eye of the Beholder, etc. being regarded as RPG. I am no expert in either field, so please forgive my ignorance. I also must confess I don't own any of the above games, but I have "played" the demos of a couple of them. The initial obvious difference I can see is that most, if not all RPGs appear to be based upon the AD&D concept of hit-points, magic, health meters, etc. and seem to be heavily into magic, spells, monsters, occult concepts, etc. If that is true, then why aren't QG or KQ RPGs since they are also set in medieval time periods with monsters & magic, no? The reason this is important for me is that it will determine the route & platform my game will take. I admit it sounds odd to work on something you have had little previous experience with but I have happened upon a great story that cries out to be coded and it seems to fit one of these categories (leaning mostly to graphic adventure, as far as I can tell). Any and all thought on this matter would be most appreciated. - Frank, the almost-ready ........................................................................... Fm: MINDCRAFT 71511,367 # 386671 To: Frank Sachse 74140,2413 (X) Date: 29-Jun-93 11:35:11 I guess the deciding factors of what makes an RPG v. Adventure are those of character development and puzzle style. In a "standard" adventure game, your character's skills count for naught and puzzles must be independently solved through your own intuition/logic. Role playing games feature your character advancing in power and ability, and the puzzles are commonly a combination of the above with the caveat that your character must be personally capable of enduring the solution. The medieval/demonic theme you tie in with RPGs is a side effect; personal power in a violent world is an attractive carrot-onna-stick to dangle before the player, and medieval fantasy is sure violent! Patrick E. Hughes ........................................................................... Fm: Bart Stewart 76247,1130 # 386683 To: Frank Sachse 74140,2413 (X) Date: 29-Jun-93 11:45:57 Frank, it seems to me that the difference between "adventures" and "RPGs" as found in the computer game market today is that adventures are more scripted, while RPGs are more free-form. In other words, in an adventure, you're free to wander around and do things for a while, but once you reach a certain point, you're dropped into a script of the designer's choosing, where you're told what to do next, but not how to do it. In comparison, an RPG generally seems to leave a lot more things up to the player, and gives him or her much more territory to cover, more things to interact with, and more commands to learn. Novice gamers are often frustrated by the complexity of RPGs, but the advanced folks like to have as much control over their character and his world as they can get. Sometimes the lines between adventures and RPGs can be blurry. Ultima Underworld II, for example, limits the order in which you can do certain things, and has an ongoing murder mystery plot, tied to your completion of several RPG-type quests, which you are free to complete in countless ways. So, since it's possible to succeed at either genre, or even a combination, perhaps you should consider your target audience, and sculpt your world interface to suit them. -- Bart ........................................................................... Fm: Crusader 72134,1460 # 386777 To: Frank Sachse 74140,2413 (X) Date: 29-Jun-93 14:54:39 Adventures generally do not have combat. (Quest For Glory is a 'problem' game... some people call it an RPG some an Adventure, it is really a hybrid of both types of games... here in GAMERS the QFG games are usually lumped in with the RPGs... Ultima 7 is another game that blurs the lines, there is a lot of 'Adventure type' stuff in it...) Both adventures and RPGs can be either linear or free form, both can have the same kinds of puzzles, but RPGs in general have a "ratings" system built in, which determines what the character (or characters) are cabible of (it can be as simple as Agility/Strength/Stamina or as comples as you like {with hundreds of different skills, from Swimming to Sex <g>}) these are increased as you go along...while in an adventure you can do anything that is possible to do in the game any time you want... The combat aspect of an RPG often is what will make the game take longer to play than an adventure, as some puzzles may require that you are of a certian "level" to solve them, so you need to spend a few hours out -whacking- on monsters/space aliens (there are a few future RPGs out there to go along with the medieval ones) to be able to complete a section of the game. None of these rules are hard and fast though... So what you should do is write the game you want to write and let those people who like to pigeonhole things figure out what to call it... :) --Crusader-- ........................................................................... Fm: David Boynton 71043,317 # 386855 To: Frank Sachse 74140,2413 (X) Date: 29-Jun-93 17:17:19 ... >The initial obvious difference I can see is that most, if not all RPGs >appear to be based upon the AD&D concept of hit-points, magic, health >meters, etc. and seem to be heavily into magic, spells, monsters, >occult concepts, etc. If that is true, then why aren't QG or KQ RPGs >since they are also set in medieval time periods with monsters & >magic, no? From the programmers' side, the adventure games are state machines, or if you're into math, a "directed graph". This means if you're at node 1, you can perform actions a,b,c to get you to nodes 2,5,18. If you're at node 2, etc, etc. These types of games can be very easy to code, but the players are restricted in what they can do. The RPG is not a state machine, because there are too many combinations of states. So, you could it as objects, each with a location, some attributes, a bag of goodies, etc, which you'll probably save in files so the player can save/restore the game (which some adventure games don't allow). You'll probably have randomly generated events, and you try to allow the player to do anything at any time, as much as possible. For example, Savage Empire lets you fish for your supper, and make hand grenades from clay pots that you've fired in a kiln. Ultima VII evens allows you to bake bread and earn extra money from egg-farming! ........................................................................... Fm: Chris Lampton [GAMPUB] 76711,301 # 386906 To: Frank Sachse 74140,2413 (X) Date: 29-Jun-93 17:54:33 The differences between adventures and CRPGs are mostly matters of convention. Both genres attempt to create an interactive story in which the player controls the main character or characters. However, the two genres are moving toward this goal from different starting points: Adventure games began in imitation of the original Crowther and Woods adventure, while CRPGs began in imitation of Dungeons & Dragons. The primary conventions of the two genres are borrowed from those sources. To my mind, the only _essential_ difference between the two genres is that, in CRPGs, the player characters have statistically described attributes which can be improved through experience, while in adventure games they do not. A few games -- the QUEST FOR GLORY series, for instance -- even manage to blur this distinction. Ultimately, as the two genres cross-pollinate one another and computer hardware becomes more powerful, I suspect that all distinctions will cease to exist and the two genres will merge into a single genre of virtual reality game. --Chris ...........................................................................